Most of them, but especially your proposal of more sensitivity training for liberal academics who say disdainful things about anti gun control hillbillies or who suggest fundamentalists have something wrong with them, morally or psychologically.

Even Fea’s presumption that “biblical counselling” had died out and his late realization of its connection to radical homophobia is a form of liberal triumphalism that has prevailed among “moderate” conservatives and evangelicals. They should have known better, but it was in their career interests not to.

Greater tolerance toward radically intolerant people now is the compromising path of fear and maybe opportunism for some, but it’s wrong if you actually believe in equality as a value. Treating people equally and striving to include them when their agenda and record is entirely the opposite is suicidal, and it does cost lives.

Would you mind inclusivity and sensitivity workshops being run by fundamentalists themselves? Why not include open racists as well, to get the full range of conservative and religious views? Where do you draw the line?

If you want less casual incivility but don’t have a problem with serious critique and research into the pathological nature of antiliberal movements from a standpoint committed to liberal values that is rather different than seeking to treat complementarian fundamentalists as equal members of your implied audience. The latter is hardly a big problem and strange to pick as a priority. Some academics and students in their audiences might be former fundamentalists themselves or victims of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse common to fundamentalist communities.